MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280600475 · doi:10.21201/2022.8939

Dangerous Delay 2: The cost of inaction

2022· report· en· W4280600475 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Farr, Leah Finnigan, Joanne Grace, Mathew Truscott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamineAction (physics)Order (exchange)Window of opportunityQuarter (Canadian coin)Political scienceHumanitarian crisisInternational communityBusinessDevelopment economicsEconomic policyRefugeeHistoryFinanceEconomicsEngineeringLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2011, Somalia experienced a devastating famine that killed over a quarter of a million people. Afterwards, leaders in the region made a commitment to end drought emergencies by 2022. The international community sought to ensure that there would be no repeat of the failures that led to famine. Next time, the world would heed the warnings and act early to avoid the crisis. But despite various warnings and alarms over the past two years, the commitment to anticipatory action has proven half-hearted. We are once again responding too late and with too little to avert the crisis. In this follow-up to their 2012 briefing A Dangerous Delay, Oxfam and Save the Children, supported by the Jameel Observatory, examine what has changed and what has not in the humanitarian system since 2011. They explain how it must evolve in order to enable and fully fund anticipatory action. With the climate crisis set to deepen, the current system must change quickly in order to meet the challenges we face in the years ahead.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.314
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207